Brisbane Busway System

[Heidewitzka]

my proposal for the eternal bus vs. light rail discussion:

- convert all busways to light rail
- let busses feed into light rail at peak hours and run buses on east-west axis (in case SE and Northern Busway)
- run light rail at high frequency (2-4 min) so waiting time while changing modes of transport is minimized
- connect busway/light rail with planned subway (e.g. at Woolloongabba) so couple of trams can circumnavigate Cultural Centre and run on subway rails to CBD
- mix bus and light rail operations at off peak to guarantee high frequency
- issues with light rail off the busways: build platforms in the middle of the road and connect these with traffic lights to both sides of the street or build the rails close enough to the sidewalk

imho:
- poles and wires required to run a light rail are not a beauty but neiter an eyesore (like huge car parks)
- having multiple doors to enter a tram reduces dwelling times as well as having a ticket machine inside each tram (like a pre-paid bus)
- capacity of up to 25,000 pax per hour (compared to SE busway with 13,000)
- trams accelerate faster and can carry up to 250 persons per vehicle like this one

[crazyknightsfan]

Originally Posted by Heidewitzka

- trams accelerate faster

fail

[Marty_]

@Heidewitzka - I totally disagree.

We don't need the additional capacity. Busways are cheaper to build by a long shot, they look better, and they integrate better into Brisbane's existing PT network (ie buses). SE QLD can't afford your proposal. Our population is not dense enough. The need is not there for the higher capacity. Heck, we're flat out getting enough buses on the road at the moment, let along 2-4 min light rail frequencies.

There is nothing wrong with busways. In fact, for Brisbane, they're just about the perfect solution. Price/capacity ratio is right for our needs.

[historyworks]

Originally Posted by crazyknightsfan

fail

Que? But they do have faster (and smoother) acceleration due to higher power to weight ratio and control system. Where did you get your information from the contrary - just observing the Melbourne system where they don't make use of the inbuilt potential? You need to go somewhere trams are applied to their proper potential.

Originally Posted by Marty_

@Heidewitzka - I totally disagree.

We don't need the additional capacity. Busways are cheaper to build by a long shot, they look better, and they integrate better into Brisbane's existing PT network (ie buses). SE QLD can't afford your proposal. Our population is not dense enough. The need is not there for the higher capacity. Heck, we're flat out getting enough buses on the road at the moment, let along 2-4 min light rail frequencies.

There is nothing wrong with busways. In fact, for Brisbane, they're just about the perfect solution. Price/capacity ratio is right for our needs.

The capital costs for busways (as in BRT) and light rail are similar. Perhaps what you're thinking of is the superficial accounting applied to on-street buses where the infrastructure cost is absorbed in the general road subsidy and not passed on to the bus operator. The long-term operating cost of buses is much higher, making them in the long term the most expensive form of mass transit. (See your Gold Coast study for an example of an analysis of this.) This is not the best and most cost-effective use of buses. Sydney and Brisbane pay dearly in the long term for their reliance on buses as mass transit. It also has the effect in Sydney of sucking limited bus fleets away from the subsidiary services, where they are needed most, as they deperately try to fulfil demand on the high volume services.

But yes you could be right that you don't need the additional capacity in Brisbane yet (as long as I turn a blind eye to the photos of the Brisbane bus conga lines I see here in Sydney - I'll assume you know what you're doing up there LOL!).

[L2]

Originally Posted by Heidewitzka

my proposal for the eternal bus vs. light rail discussion:

Fail of a plan.

The SE Busway is already carrying passenger volumes comparable to heavy rail - it carries more than any of QR Citytrain's lines do. Converting it to light rail would be utter lunacy.

Originally Posted by Heidewitzka

- run light rail at high frequency (2-4 min) so waiting time while changing modes of transport is minimized

The buses already run every 20 seconds in peak, some are artics. One bus every 20 seconds is superior to a tram every 2-4 minutes for capacity

Originally Posted by historyworks

You need to go somewhere trams are applied to their proper potential.

Such as?

[Messed Up]

Originally Posted by historyworks

Que? But they do have faster (and smoother) acceleration due to higher power to weight ratio and control system. Where did you get your information from the contrary - j

re LOL!).

Simple mechanics. Steel on steel has a lot less friction or grip than rubber on bitumen hence trams are unable to put their power to the ground. Same applies to braking or deceleration.

The downside or upside to this is that buses are less comfortable and jerky to ride on than trams. Buses can also get upto speed faster and therefore impede traffic less.

[Orfeo]

If the Eastern busway and an exension to the SE busway are ever completed, congestion could become more of an issue. But at the moment the buways are efficient.

Originally Posted by L2

The SE Busway is already carrying passenger volumes comparable to heavy rail - it carries more than any of QR Citytrain's lines do. Converting it to light rail would be utter lunacy.

If you happen to have estimates for the train lines and busways easily available, i'd be quite interested.

[Arnzy]

A dual mode light-rail/busway wouldnt hurt either. Remove the buses from the core busway route 111, and re-allocate them elsewhere to other routes.

Whilst at the same time, there is capacity for both buses and light rail to share the track.

*LRT would obvious operate on the spine route (which is currently the Route 111 BUZ) and terminate somewhere outside the QSBS.
*The other main routes, the 130 BUZ, 140, 150 BUZ, etc would still operate on the busway, just inbetween the LRT which would be every 15 minutes off, every 10 mins peak (or even 10 mins off, 5 mins peak, pending capacity).
*The buses currently used for the Route 111 would be freed up for other routes that need it.
*The suburban bus routes would still have a "through, one-seat journey*

Issues
*One mode is either late, and the vehicles behind it gets delayed.

[L2]

You want to build a light railway along the busway, and run one tram every 15 minutes amongst a sea of buses?

"The buses can be used elsewhere" is a very shallow argument - so could the trams.

[Max Headway]

Originally Posted by Arnzy

There is capacity for both buses and light rail to share the track ... The 130 BUZ, 140, 150 BUZ, etc would still operate on the busway, just inbetween the LRT which would be every 15 minutes

Much more sensible to cut back the 130/140 to terminate at Griffith Uni, and the 150 at Garden City. Run light rail every 6 minutes. In fact, you can run the light rail on ballasted track if it doesn't have to share with buses.

[crazyknightsfan]

Originally Posted by historyworks

Que? But they do have faster (and smoother) acceleration due to higher power to weight ratio and control system. Where did you get your information from the contrary - just observing the Melbourne system where they don't make use of the inbuilt potential? You need to go somewhere trams are applied to their proper potential.

Simple physics

[Max Headway]

Originally Posted by L2

The SE Busway is already carrying passenger volumes comparable to heavy rail?

Only because rail carries way too few passengers outside peak hour, as another poster (wish I could remember who it is?) has pointed out.

[crazyknightsfan]

Originally Posted by Arnzy

A dual mode light-rail/busway wouldnt hurt either. Remove the buses from the core busway route 111, and re-allocate them elsewhere to other routes.

Whilst at the same time, there is capacity for both buses and light rail to share the track.

*LRT would obvious operate on the spine route (which is currently the Route 111 BUZ) and terminate somewhere outside the QSBS.
*The other main routes, the 130 BUZ, 140, 150 BUZ, etc would still operate on the busway, just inbetween the LRT which would be every 15 minutes off, every 10 mins peak (or even 10 mins off, 5 mins peak, pending capacity).
*The buses currently used for the Route 111 would be freed up for other routes that need it.
*The suburban bus routes would still have a "through, one-seat journey*

Issues
*One mode is either late, and the vehicles behind it gets delayed.

woooow....i suggest sticking to driving Kippa-ring trains. that has got to be one of the silliest things ive heard in quite a while (keep in mind I haven't been reading railpage tho...)

[L2]

Originally Posted by Max Headway

Only because rail carries way too few passengers outside peak hour

It's carrying passenger volumes comparable to busy interstate lines too.

On the Transport Textbook I posted some statistics about the SE Busway's patronage.

Originally Posted by crazyknightsfan

(keep in mind I haven't been reading railpage tho...)

It tops most of what's been on the dribble page lately - not many fantasy plans of late

[Marty_]

As far as I can tell, those who are dead keen on replacing the busways are simply rail fanboy's. It's a subjective matter of 'liking trains' better than buses.

Hardly compensates for the massive upheaval and costs involved in replacing the infrastructure. Wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to keep a system that is working well, and invest the money into making it better and more extensive?

I guess being an armchair critic means you've got fantasy on your side and money isn't an issue.

There's nothing WRONG with the Busways.

[Heidewitzka]

Thanks for your replys.

my reply is somewhat lengthy, as I copy and pasted from an interesting article about Ottawa´s busways for which conversion to LRT is discussed as well.

not discussed:
- integration of subway into existing Busway/LRT
- bus jams at Cultural Centre

addition to first post:
-LRT should not be restricted to busways but also also connect major traffic generators like Unis and train stations. (in case of SE: build tram to Queen E. 2 Hospital/Griffith Uni)
- LRT can integrate western suburbs into existing BRT without the need for massive constructions
- connect UQ via Coro Drive to City (built in median) as one of the biggest traffic generators

population is not dense enough:

that´s like the egg and the chicken: you won´t get a denser pop. without sufficent transport (either PT or individual)
no TODs without T

capacity:
The SE Busway is already carrying passenger volumes comparable to heavy rail:

"In peak hour Brisbane’s South East Busway moves 15,000 people per hour."
source: http://transporttextbook.com/?p=310

"However, many BRT systems such as OC Transpo Transitway, Ottawa and South-East Busway, Brisbane are based on multiple bus routes sharing a common dedicated busway to bypass congestion, especially to/from a central business district. In this form, the BRT system passenger capacity is limited by vehicle capacity times vehicle headway of the busway."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

"By contrast, light rail vehicles can travel in multi-car trains carrying up to 20,000 passengers per hour in much narrower rights-of-way, not much more than two car lanes wide for a double track system.[18] They can often be run through existing city streets and parks, or placed in the medians of roads.

If run in streets, trains are usually limited by city block lengths to about four 180-passenger vehicles (720 passengers). Operating on 2 minute headways using traffic signal progression, a well-designed two-track system can handle up to 30 trains per hour per track, achieving peak rates of over 20,000 passengers per hour in each direction. More advanced systems with separate rights-of-way using moving block signalling can exceed 25,000 passengers per hour per track."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Rail


"BRT has a lower maximum capacity than light rail; to even approach light rail capacity requires that BRT be made very rail-like with fixed guideways and the like, which tends to be costly and remove some of the advantages of BRT, such as flexibility of service routing. Ottawa’s Transitway is often claimed to have a capacity of 10,000 passengers per hour per direction (Cervero, 1998, p. 247), but this volume has never been achieved.

As of 2005, Ottawa’s Transitway was carrying 6500 passengers westwards out of the downtown and 8500 eastwards at the peak afternoon hour (Ottawa, 2005b). Given the congestion already present, it is highly unlikely that 10,000 passengers per direction could be moved in one hour. By contrast, a three-car train with a capacity of 200 passengers per railcar running every 4 minutes can move 9000 passengers per hour. Since 2 minute intervals or less are possible and trains can be four, five or even six cars long, much greater volumes are achieveable with light rail."
source: see below

operating cost:
"In heavily-used corridors, BRT is more expensive to operate than a comparable light rail service. With light rail, multiple vehicles can be coupled together into trains requiring only one operator instead of the multiple drivers that would be required in a bus-based service

road maintenance tends to be higher than that of rail and buses
wear out sooner and thus require replacement more often than railcars"
source: see below

building cost:
"In densely built-up corridors requiring many structures for grade separation, busway construction costs may approach and even exceed light rail construction costs. This is because buses are unguided and therefore require more right-of-way width to ensure safe operation. The extra structural (and often excavation) width - as much as 60% extra - is costly to build and may be more disruptive to construct as well. Station building costs can be higher for BRT too. Since most buses, unlike rail vehicles, have doors only on one side, stations with two platforms are usually required for BRT where light rail could operate with a single, central platform. Where space is at a premium, and even where it is not, this raises the cost of BRT compared to light rail."

Attractiveness:
"Compared to light rail, BRT may not attract as many choice riders. Choice riders are transit riders who choose to take transit rather than the personal automobile. Choice riders may choose to commute by transit to avoid being caught in traffic congestion or because transit use allows for a more productive use of their time for reading or work (TRB,2003b, p. 1-1).

Indeed, there is recent evidence to suggest that new light rail operations attract far more riders than forecast (LRN, 2001b); Ottawa’s O-Train pilot project, for example, was estimated to carry 5100 passengers per day (Ottawa, 2002) but the actual number in 2005 was in excess of 10,000 passengers per day (Transport 2000, 2005, 1), with unsubstantiated reports of 12,000 or more in 2006. This underestimating may be the consequence of using a bus-based estimation formula for ridership in a rail corridor, which is based on an assumption that buses and trains attract riders equally (LRN, 2001b)."
source: see below

Conclusion:
"For small to mediumsized cities, as well as along moderately-used corridors in larger cities, BRT may be all that is ever needed. In larger cities [like Brisbane?!], however, as build-out proceeds and ridership grows, the inherent constraints and costs of a transit system based on buses alone along heavily used corridors become apparent. In those situations, conversion to light rail becomes an increasingly attractive prospect."
Source: Ottawa’s Transitway: From Busway to Light Rail (David James)
http://homepages.ucalgary.ca/~dpjame...-mdp-final.pdf

[crazyknightsfan]

Originally Posted by Marty_

As far as I can tell, those who are dead keen on replacing the busways are simply rail fanboy's.

got it in one (hi historyworks )

[historyworks]

Originally Posted by crazyknightsfan

Simple physics

Simple physics has been defeated by advances in traction systems. Only a trolley bus (power to weight again) can match a tram in acceleration. In Nice for example they found they gained 64% in average speeds when they replaced bus with tram. This didn't come from higher maximum speed - that remained the same - it came from acceleration and deceleration.

I won't enter the rest of the debate here - Heidewitzka started it, he can finish it!

Originally Posted by crazyknightsfan

got it in one (hi historyworks )

If only life were so simple - hey it is in Australia!

[crazyknightsfan]

Originally Posted by historyworks

Simple physics has been defeated by advances in traction systems. Only a trolley bus (power to weight again) can match a tram in acceleration. In Nice for example they found they gained 64% in average speeds when they replaced bus with tram. This didn't come from higher maximum speed - that remained the same - it came from acceleration and deceleration.

I'm always sceptical of these sort of statistics, given that you can get these sort of claims from replacing a slow bus with a highly developed tram. What about a highly developed bus then, to make things even? Simple physics dictates that the maximum possible acceleration for steel on steel cannot match the maximum possible acceleration for rubber on bitumen. If you want your tram to have rubber tyres you essentially have a......bus.

Originally Posted by historyworks

I won't enter the rest of the debate here - Heidewitzka started it, he can finish it!

I'm also staying out of this argument (unless I get bored), i have done it to death, however I always have time for you.

[historyworks]

Originally Posted by crazyknightsfan

I'm also staying out of this argument (unless I get bored), i have done it to death, however I always have time for you.

Thank you crazyknightsfan you're a gentleman and a scholar LOL!